@dbwiddis @neilcsmith-net you two experimented with the JPMS artifacts. What do you think about this change?

I think I prefer it as it's more self-documenting. It's the direction I chose with my project as well, although I also plan to include other Java9+ features.

Not sure why a new groupID is preferred to a new artifactId, but from a downstream implementation perspective it's pretty much the same.

@dbwiddis yes I'm still pondering the groupId vs artifactId question (lets paint the bikeshed :-)).

Option 1 (GroupId):

 <dependency>
   <groupId>net.java.dev.jna.jpms</groupId>
   <artifactId>jna</artifactId>
   <version>5.8.0</version>
 </dependency>

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna.jpms</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

Option 2 (ArtifactId):

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-jpms</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform-jpms</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

I like both paint colors in preference to the existing unpainted bike shed for the following reason:

• I could add a property in my pom.xml to add or remove the -jpms conditionally based on other factors in the build.

I prefer paint color option 2 for the following reason:

• When I want to see all JNA artifacts at Maven, I would see it right there. With a different groupID I'd have to know it exists to even go looking for it.
  • See for example my project where you instantly get a menu of "oh, a shaded artifact, or a Java11 artifact".
  • See for example Hibernate whose inclusion of separate artifactIds for different java versions was what inspired me to make my choice
  • Or see the same examples and say "that's confusing with so many artifacts, they should be in separate groups.

In the interest of confusing it even more, there's always color 3, making the existing JPMS-compatible MRJAR the primary artifact and letting the few people with a broken build use an older compatible artifact. :-)

FWIW, I think the artefact ID is the way to go. I was going to suggest looking at the solution other projects are using, but I'm not keen on the -java11 suffix - -jpms is far more explicit, even if the JDK teams want us all to stop using it. Short but version neutral acronym seems good!

I would leave color 3 until JNA 6.x - then switch to possibly having a -jdk8 or -legacy or -non-jpms option if desired.

I'm not keen on the -java11 suffix - -jpms is far more explicit

Agreed if the only change is the module descriptor. In my case I plan on including other JDK 11+ features so -jpms wasn't broad enough (although I considered and rejected -mrjar).

I would leave color 3 until JNA 6.x

Agree here too!

I squashed the changes, adjusted the wording of the change log and will merge tomorrow if noone objects till then.